Pension and divorce

Pollycat

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

Not in law no. Morally is another question.

And do you think a judge or mediator will work on the moral side or what the law says?

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

Forgive me for being angry on my sisters behalf.

I understand your position.
I've been there with a very good friend (who incidentally was treated very poorly by her ex and, like your sister, also can't look forward to an early retirement).
But taking issue with the fact that I referred to you as 'him' was petty, unnecessary and irrelevant.

enthusiasticsaver

justme111 wrote: »

if you read the thread by JackRS that starts with a word "separated " you may find it enlightening and fascinating.

I read that thread and yes it was fascinating and I believe in the end he found someone else.

His wife though chose not to work at all until he actually separated from her. My sister worked part time while bringing up the children and works full time now. Many women do this, myself included and settled for jobs rather than careers. If I and my DH split we would be in the same position. It is difficult to balance two careers with bringing up children if one person has a job involving a lot of travel. That is a personal choice. Working part time means job sacrifices and earning power. That becomes more obvious later on. Divorcing after the wife has sacrificed her career and allowing the husband to concentrate on his and expecting all those years to just be ignored is unfair. Thousands of women have found that. My brother in law has acknowledged that. I can't remember the actual split but I know Jack had to pay maintenance. My sister is not asking for that as far as I am aware unless they delay the sale of the family home.

The thing I found from his thread was the extortionate legal fees and lengthy protracted battle and his relationship with his children. My sister and brother in law are choosing to do this as amicably as possible.

I cannot see any similarities beyond the fact they both divorced after long marriages. My sister was married for a lot longer than Jacks too.

crv1963

Just read this thread after posting on your other one.


Some points spring to mind after my rather acrimonious divorce!


1) The reason for marital breakdown are immaterial to the financial settlement.
2) After a long marriage (anything greater than 10 years) the courts aim is to have each party on an equal financial footing, of course the needs of children are paramount but if they are over 18 years they are considered to be adults and able to provide for themselves so in this case their needs will not be considered.
3) The source of paying off the house will not be considered any monies either party got during the marriage will be thought of as joint assets. I paid for our house outright at the start of my marriage but the whole equity was given to the ex because we had children under 18 and as I was renting I was deemed to have had my housing needs met.
4) In my case we both got CETVs, they were added together by the judge and the total split 50:50, so a big percentage of my pension was handed over.


In this case it would seem the starting point would be


i) House equity 750k
ii) His CETV + Her CETV = X amount
iii) Savings/ ISAs etc = Y amount


Court adds it all up and divides equally, the only negotiating position is how much equity he is willing to forgo to preserve pension or how much pension she will forgo to hang onto equity.


The court will look dispassionately at the whole and as you can't live in a pension may order more equity to him and equalise the pension pots.


Your sister really does need to face reality and seek a bit of legal advice- know where she stands, what she can realistically expect to give up and to receive. Also if she starts the divorce she will drive the pace of proceedings, she will need his agreement if they have been separated less than 5 years or use grounds for divorce- these do not need to be horrible but demonstrate the marriage is over to the Judge.
If she allows him to divorce her she may become more depressed as she has no say or control over the proceedings.

happyandcontented

Pollycat wrote: »

And do you think a judge or mediator will work on the moral side or what the law says?


I understand your position.
I've been there with a very good friend (who incidentally was treated very poorly by her ex and, like your sister, also can't look forward to an early retirement).
But taking issue with the fact that I referred to you as 'him' was petty, unnecessary and irrelevant.

I am supporting a friend going through this at the moment and although she is getting legal advice often she does not fully understand the implications. Up to now, her advisor has not mentioned pensions. I told her she needed to ask about that aspect.

With regard to your last point, I think it is sometimes necessary/useful to know the gender of a poster to fully understand their position. Perhaps that is why the OP pointed it out to you? As an outsider looking in I don't believe it was any of the things you have listed here. I think you may have been too quick to jump to judgment of why the OP did it.

SuperMoose

You and your sister might find this site useful

Wikivorce

enthusiasticsaver

Pollycat wrote: »

And do you think a judge or mediator will work on the moral side or what the law says?


I understand your position.
I've been there with a very good friend (who incidentally was treated very poorly by her ex and, like your sister, also can't look forward to an early retirement).
But taking issue with the fact that I referred to you as 'him' was petty, unnecessary and irrelevant.

I am hoping they come to a solution they are both ok with without the need of a judge although I will suggest financial mediation to my sister once she is clearer about her options and has the figures for pensions etc.

I corrected you re my gender as sometimes on heated threads with divorce it makes a difference to some people as to whether the OP identifies with one or the other. It was not meant maliciously so if you took it that way I apologise.

I am sorry about your friend and that she has been treated poorly.

enthusiasticsaver

happyandcontented wrote: »

I am supporting a friend going through this at the moment and although she is getting legal advice often she does not fully understand the implications. Up to now, her advisor has not mentioned pensions. I told her she needed to ask about that aspect.

With regard to your last point, I think it is sometimes necessary/useful to know the gender of a poster to fully understand their position. Perhaps that is why the OP pointed it out to you? As an outsider looking in I don't believe it was any of the things you have listed here. I think you may have been too quick to jump to judgment of why the OP did it.

You are entirely correct. I posted at the same time as you.

Quite a few people have said that they know people who ignored pensions and regretted it later. Unless you are reasonably well informed about them many people don't realise their value. My DH and I have both taken early retirement in the last few years so I am reasonably well up on them. Well done on prompting your friend. Is she using a lawyer or mediator?

crv1963

Whatever you sister decides advise strongly against handing over any monies, while married even if separated the money will be seen as joint monies.
She needs to consider spousal maintenance, contacting the Land Registry and putting the house into joint tenants instead of joint owners, letting the NHS Pension Service know and changing him from the beneficiary of her pension (a simple one side of A4 form).

happyandcontented

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

You are entirely correct. I posted at the same time as you.

Quite a few people have said that they know people who ignored pensions and regretted it later. Unless you are reasonably well informed about them many people don't realise their value. My DH and I have both taken early retirement in the last few years so I am reasonably well up on them. Well done on prompting your friend. Is she using a lawyer or mediator?

Currently, she has a lawyer but it was some time before she admitted to anyone (even her closest friends) that he had gone... and so she just picked a name from the phone book and we fear she may not have chosen wisely.

Like you, we have been researching pension options recently (previously we had no idea of potential value) so I wanted her to be aware of what amounts could be involved.

enthusiasticsaver

crv1963 wrote: »

Just read this thread after posting on your other one.


Some points spring to mind after my rather acrimonious divorce!


1) The reason for marital breakdown are immaterial to the financial settlement.
2) After a long marriage (anything greater than 10 years) the courts aim is to have each party on an equal financial footing, of course the needs of children are paramount but if they are over 18 years they are considered to be adults and able to provide for themselves so in this case their needs will not be considered.
3) The source of paying off the house will not be considered any monies either party got during the marriage will be thought of as joint assets. I paid for our house outright at the start of my marriage but the whole equity was given to the ex because we had children under 18 and as I was renting I was deemed to have had my housing needs met.
4) In my case we both got CETVs, they were added together by the judge and the total split 50:50, so a big percentage of my pension was handed over.


In this case it would seem the starting point would be


i) House equity 750k
ii) His CETV + Her CETV = X amount
iii) Savings/ ISAs etc = Y amount


Court adds it all up and divides equally, the only negotiating position is how much equity he is willing to forgo to preserve pension or how much pension she will forgo to hang onto equity.


The court will look dispassionately at the whole and as you can't live in a pension may order more equity to him and equalise the pension pots.


Your sister really does need to face reality and seek a bit of legal advice- know where she stands, what she can realistically expect to give up and to receive. Also if she starts the divorce she will drive the pace of proceedings, she will need his agreement if they have been separated less than 5 years or use grounds for divorce- these do not need to be horrible but demonstrate the marriage is over to the Judge.
If she allows him to divorce her she may become more depressed as she has no say or control over the proceedings.

If they agree between them there will be no need for Courts or judges. They have both recognised that and my sister acknowledges so far her ex has been fair and she would get less than as it stands now. She was surprised at my brother in laws initial proposal to take such a small percentage but as I say I think ready cash is what he needs now to get back on the housing ladder. She will not instigate proceedings but I don't think she will delay deliberately. I have looked at the financial consent form and it is 28 pages so this is not a quick process. They seem to be on the same page so far but there are many ways of splitting the assets.

Putting myself in her position I think I would ask for say a 35% split in his pension to recognise the differential between the pensions.

Offer some of her inheritance which he agrees is hers to help him buy a property and give him say a 20% split of the equity in the property once it is sold after say both kids reach 30 as it is London. That would give him a total of 30% which acknowledges the money she put in. Again he has said he is happy with a reduced share. This way allows him to move on now but gives him a share and keeps his kids in the family home. My sister can then downsize.

He keeps his savings and she keeps hers.

That is just my surmising though and there will be some who won't agree and a court probably wouldn't.

Your divorce sounds very acrimonious and I am surprised you weren't able to retain a share in the house until the kids were grown. Unless of course you wanted a clean break and that maybe will what my sister wants in which case yes she may have to forego the pension.